Agriculture and GDP Per Capita PPP

[Sbane]

what point were you trying to prove?

Some people think a country can be made prosperous by more agriculture, or more people working in agriculture. It's quite idiotic. But of course Phknrocket might be trying to prove some other point, I dunno.

[Sbane]

what point were you trying to prove?

Some people think a country can be made prosperous by more agriculture, or more people working in agriculture. It's quite idiotic. But of course Phknrocket might be trying to prove some other point, I dunno.

Well, there is no doubt that increased ag employment would help rural America.  And while the correlation is absolutely clear, a robust ag sector is vital to our economy.  We have some of the best farm land on earth and we'd be stupid not to take advantage of that simply because somebody in a third world country could produce less vigorous, less nutritionally balanced foods more cheaply.

America already has the most farmlands in the world. And also the most productive, though that might have more to do with vastly better irrigation and better infrastructure to get the food to market. And we get it done with much less manual labor than developing countries. Don't you think that is better, since it's being produced at a cheaper cost? You could argue we need more farming in America, but it shouldn't and won't be a major source of employment. It should remain right around 2-3%, where it is currently.

[Sbane]

I also prefer the latter, but in many cases we need to use irrigation to grow crops. I of course don't support growing rice in the desert, but I don't think the entire California agriculture industry should be shut down (and let's not forget California has some of the most fertile land in America, but it has a shortage of water).

And it's not as if this kind of agriculture is happening at the expense of agriculture on land with more rainfall. America has the most farmed land in the world because it has been successful at turning semi-arid areas into productive farmland in addition to land that is seemingly more fit for farming.

Is there some massive under utilization of farmland in the midwest that I am not aware of? Otherwise I am not grasping the point you are trying to make.

[Sbane]

Is there some massive under utilization of farmland in the midwest that I am not aware of? Otherwise I am not grasping the point you are trying to make.

Uncle Sam pays billions in subsidies for farmers *not* to grow crops, which is morally reprehensible as well as a massive waste of tax dollars.

Oh yeah, that. But even in that case we don't need to expand the amount of arable land. We just need to actually grow food on it.

[Sbane]

I think the point he's trying to make is that it would be better for society in the rural Midwest if more people worked on the land.

What's wrong with mechanization making agriculture less labor intensive? It makes food cheaper for all of us. If more people in the rural midwest worked on the land, either food prices would go up or wages would go down (but since minimum wage laws won't allow it beyond a certain point, food prices will go up).